On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 01:11:21AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 08:08, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > I'm curious if most SA users are using Subject: rewriting or not.
>
> It's the default. People are lazy. I bet it's not just the majority,
> but the *vast* majority.
>
Subj
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 08:08, Charlie Watts wrote:
> I'm curious if most SA users are using Subject: rewriting or not.
It's the default. People are lazy. I bet it's not just the majority,
but the *vast* majority.
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:35, Shayne Hardesty wrote:
> this earlier this week.. As spamassassin evolves, rules will need to be
> updated regularly (weekly?), but I think forcing a recompile and reinstall
This shouldn't be the case, if the rules are thoughtfully produced to
start with. I'm runnin
*/1 * * * * cd ~/code/spamassassin;cvs commit -m 'Round the clock'
;)
C
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 02:24, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >>In many ways, yes. They have a round-the-clock team watching honeypots
> >>for new outbreaks and updating rules accordingly. SA is much more
>
Maybe we could leave the default as SPAM and then in the docs
somewhere hidden say:
SPAM really means might be spam. Do not sue.
C
PS People have way too much time on their hands to spend so much of it
wondering about whether someone maybe might sue, and if they did,
whether they'
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:35:38 +0700 (ICT)
"Olivier Nicole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But for many CEO's who have been in business all their life, something
> you are not paying for has no value. And the more you are paying, the
> best it is supposed to be.
Sad but true. If it cost money it MUS
Maybe it's me, but I detect a bit of overprotectiveness being introduced
on the list...
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 01:42:13AM +, Ian Briggs wrote:
> Just to be on the safe side, though, can I suggest some small alterations
> to the default tags:
> (1) Change the subject line tag from "SPAM" to
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 04:35:08PM -0600, Shayne Hardesty wrote:
| On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
|
| > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Smith, Rick wrote:
| >
| > > Has anyone ever considered setting up a CVS site for the RULES only ?
| > >
| > > That might be worth it... a CVS update with a scr
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Jason Kohles wrote:
| On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 15:58, dman wrote:
| > On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:08:43AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
| > |
| > | Some of the spam I get is -not- *commercial* mail. Just random weird bulk
| > | spam nonsense. And "UNSOLICITED M
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Smith, Rick wrote:
>
> > Has anyone ever considered setting up a CVS site for the RULES only ?
> >
> > That might be worth it... a CVS update with a script that allowed us to
> > rollback to a previous rule level, but all the while
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:08:43AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
> | On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ian Briggs wrote:
> |
> | I'm curious if most SA users are using Subject: rewriting or not.
>
> I kinda use it. I mean, it's turned on, but I only see that subject
> when I
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 15:58, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:08:43AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
> |
> | Some of the spam I get is -not- *commercial* mail. Just random weird bulk
> | spam nonsense. And "UNSOLICITED MAIL" is shorter. :-)
> |
> | I'm curious if most SA users are using Sub
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:08:43AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
| On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ian Briggs wrote:
|
| > Just to be on the safe side, though, can I suggest some small
| > alterations to the default tags:
| > (1) Change the subject line tag from "SPAM" to "POSSIBLE UNSOLICITED
| > COMMERCIAL
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ian Briggs wrote:
> Just to be on the safe side, though, can I suggest some small
> alterations to the default tags:
> (1) Change the subject line tag from "SPAM" to "POSSIBLE UNSOLICITED
> COMMERCIAL MAIL".
Some of the spam I get is -not- *commercial* mail. Just random wei
Why not submit for volunteers to mirror a spam DB that SA checks against once
every twelve hours. Twelve hours to me is very acceptable versus doing manual
updates when I think about it :-)
Tyler.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I use that headerchangingthingie, when I check my spam-box it helps me find
out what was tagged as spam and that AS missed.
/t
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 the voices made Charlie Watts write:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ian Briggs wrote:
>
> > Just to be on the safe side, though, can I suggest so
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Smith, Rick wrote:
> Has anyone ever considered setting up a CVS site for the RULES only ?
>
> That might be worth it... a CVS update with a script that allowed us to
> rollback to a previous rule level, but all the while maintaining the
> newest set of rules for the whole k
Hello, Tony:
For a recipent this is not an issue. For a single business/organization
it's not an issue. For an ISP who lets his accounts decide for themselves
what goes into their spools, it's not an issue.
For an ISP who filters on the MTA side rejecting email based on *his*
site-wide prefer
-Original Message-
From: Matt Sergeant
Sent: Thu 3/28/2002 5:24 AM
To: Olivier Nicole
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Freedom of Press / Speech / Junk Mail (yah
right)
Olivier Nicole
>If push ever came to shove, these Red Lists
>could even be posted on an alternative site, to take the heat off SA and
>its developers.
Exactelly what I was saying :)
Olivier
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourcefor
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> I don't see it as a problem of freedom of speech, but at a problem of
> pointing finger at some companies saying "those are bad guys".
>
> We know they are, but as soon as you publish their name/IP/URL there
> is a risk for you as the one pointing at t
Olivier Nicole wrote:
>>But it's not like we can do
>>round-the-clock CVS checkins to spamassassin itself.
>
>
> Why not? At least for the list, it would just be a matter of having a
> few ppl trusted to check-in some rules.
Trust me - you wouldn't want some of our engineers writing regexps th
> But it's not like we can do
> round-the-clock CVS checkins to spamassassin itself.
Why not? At least for the list, it would just be a matter of having a
few ppl trusted to check-in some rules.
Olviier
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTE
Olivier Nicole wrote:
>>In many ways, yes. They have a round-the-clock team watching honeypots
>>for new outbreaks and updating rules accordingly. SA is much more
>>retroactive than that.
>
>
> Some (including me) are considering a round-the-wolrd team to satisfy
> the round-the-clock problem
On Thursday 28 March 2002 02:12 am, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >In many ways, yes. They have a round-the-clock team watching honeypots
> >for new outbreaks and updating rules accordingly. SA is much more
> >retroactive than that.
> Some (including me) are considering a round-the-wolrd team to satisf
>In many ways, yes. They have a round-the-clock team watching honeypots
>for new outbreaks and updating rules accordingly. SA is much more
>retroactive than that.
Some (including me) are considering a round-the-wolrd team to satisfy
the round-the-clock problem (in other issues like intercontine
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:35:28PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday 27 March 2002 01:47 am, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We're a £100m company (an ISP, and yes we're growing, not struggling),
>>>and SA is at the very heart of our anti-spam technology. Trust me - we
>>>w
nd scoring are I'd say inferior to SA though. And there's no real
way to expose configuration stuff to users with BrightMail.
C
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:35:11 -0500
> From: Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
Duncan,
> It's true though. But you must remember, the best things in life are free.
I have been using open source software for 10, 12, 15 years, can
remember, long time anyway.
So I am conveinced, but big companies are not.
Olivier
___
Spamassassin
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 08:35:38AM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >Plus, when we looked at it for our ISP customers, it would have been about
> >$30k/year. For that kind of money, you could hire someone to block spam!
>
> I think, that we have a biased vision here. Because we are all coming
> fr
>Unless I'm missing some features in SA, I can't see that it infringes
>anyone's freedom of speech. All it does is attempt to identify
I don't see it as a problem of freedom of speech, but at a problem of
pointing finger at some companies saying "those are bad guys".
We know they are, but as so
Unless I'm missing some features in SA, I can't see that it infringes
anyone's freedom of speech. All it does is attempt to identify
unsolicited commercial email, and then add tags to it. It's up to users
what they do with tagged mail.
Just to be on the safe side, though, can I suggest some sm
>Plus, when we looked at it for our ISP customers, it would have been about
>$30k/year. For that kind of money, you could hire someone to block spam!
I think, that we have a biased vision here. Because we are all coming
from open source world, we see/trust/think open source first.
But for many
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:40:46PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:35:11PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > My question is why would any company use brightmail? Is it actually that
> > much superior to spamassassin?
>
> I don't see how it _could_ be that much superior!
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:35:11PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> My question is why would any company use brightmail? Is it actually that
> much superior to spamassassin?
I don't see how it _could_ be that much superior!
Plus, when we looked at it for our ISP customers, it would have been about
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:35:28PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 March 2002 01:47 am, you wrote:
>
> > We're a £100m company (an ISP, and yes we're growing, not struggling),
> > and SA is at the very heart of our anti-spam technology. Trust me - we
> > would not let SA go away.
>
On Wednesday 27 March 2002 01:47 am, you wrote:
> We're a £100m company (an ISP, and yes we're growing, not struggling),
> and SA is at the very heart of our anti-spam technology. Trust me - we
> would not let SA go away.
That's a relief.
Also, thanks for supporting an open-source project like
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 the voices made Bill Becker write:
> If a spammer sues you it will probably be in a US federal court. You will
> need an attorney who is going bill you at hundreds of dollars per hour
> whether you win or lose. It could take years to resolve.
EFF, your freedom to not have
If a spammer sues you it will probably be in a US federal court. You will
need an attorney who is going bill you at hundreds of dollars per hour
whether you win or lose. It could take years to resolve.
I seriously doubt whether any attorney would defend you with the
understanding that he'll g
I still say that if they show up in court to sue anyone, they're
exposing themselves to serious countersuits. The only reason I haven't
sued a lot of spammers is because I don't think I'd be able to get any
judgement against them in a place where I could show they had assets.
If they come to me
Matthew Cline wrote:
> However, if a bunch of spammers co-operated, each of them could file a
> seperate suit against SA in different jurisdictions, and more spammers could
> bring up suits when the old ones were thrown out; you can use anyone for
> anything, even if it ends up getting thrown o
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 20:47, dman wrote:
> Still, I think the idea of keeping a backup of the server in a
> different locality (jurisdiction) is a reasonable precaution. Come
> on, you've read (some) of the ridiculous stuff in the papers and the
> news, haven't you?
[craig@belphegore spamassassi
Not to stir up an old hornet's nest, but where should we keep the
block-all-cn/kr/etc rules :)
C
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 18:10, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >So theroetically spammers *could* sue SA if they are specifically listed in
> >SA rules. For instance, MonsterHut.com could sue us for defemati
On Tuesday 26 March 2002 08:47 pm, dman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:31:28PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> | MAPS (Mail Abuse Prevention System) has been sued by several spammers,
> | for defemation/libel and restraint of trade (or something like that); see
> | http://mail-abuse.org/in-th
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:31:28PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
| On Tuesday 26 March 2002 08:55 am, Jason Kohles wrote:
| > On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 10:18, Smith, Rick wrote:
| > > How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same
| > > consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ?
| >
> As long as you're inside it you're a target
I am not sure I understand what you mean.
I am in Thailand, if I hosted such a list here, saying monsterhut is a
big bad spammer boy, they would have hard time to sue me I beleive.
That sysadmin around the world want to take my words for it is anoth
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 the voices made Olivier Nicole write:
> My idea is: "whatever the way we make it" should be better to make it
> outside of western world, so less sensitive to legal attacks, and fUck
> the legal warnings, we *know* those ppl *are* spammers.
As long as you're inside it you're
Tony,
> Make it a list on the web where a limited group of people can add these
> domains, and then let the person downloading/using the software chose if they
> want a select few or all of the domains... That way you can have the legal
> stuff saying that maybe that domain isn't bad, and let th
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:26:35AM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> Make it a list on the web where a limited group of people can add these
> domains, and then let the person downloading/using the software chose if they
> want a select few or all of the domains... That way you can have the legal
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 the voices made Olivier Nicole write:
> >So theroetically spammers *could* sue SA if they are specifically listed in
> >SA rules. For instance, MonsterHut.com could sue us for defemation and/or
> >restraint of trade, and since, ulike MAPS, we have no legal defence fund,
>
> S
>So theroetically spammers *could* sue SA if they are specifically listed in
>SA rules. For instance, MonsterHut.com could sue us for defemation and/or
>restraint of trade, and since, ulike MAPS, we have no legal defence fund,
Should SA set-up a secondary server (outside of western world) for
>unless all ISPs are "well-behaved" and block outbound
>port 25 except to their own mail servers
provided they have a decent architecture (that can handle the hundred
thousand, or million email they send per day) they will end up with
transparent redirection, the way they have transparent proxy
Not to mention that the minute a spammer has the cojones to appear in
court to sue anyone for blocking their spam, you can just slap them with
a counter-suit for illegally using your computing resources. IF you
read through the DMCA I bet you can even find ways of getting them sent
to jail for 20
I believe that many people are looking at this in the wrong way...perhaps an
analogy would help:
We all sue Microsoft because of the Melissa virus, because
the virus was propagated through holes in their software.
Anyone want to guess whether or not this would fly?
ISP's,
Hey, if anyone sues, I'll just say it's Justin's fault, and they can try
and track him down wherever he is in Asia...
C
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 13:31, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 March 2002 08:55 am, Jason Kohles wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 10:18, Smith, Rick wrote:
> > > How long do
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:31:28PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> However, if a bunch of spammers co-operated, each of them could file a
> seperate suit against SA in different jurisdictions, and more spammers could
> bring up suits when the old ones were thrown out; you can use anyone for
> any
On Tuesday 26 March 2002 08:55 am, Jason Kohles wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 10:18, Smith, Rick wrote:
> > How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same
> > consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ?
> >
> > I'm sure that some lawyer out there could find a way to sue someone
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 the voices made rODbegbie write:
> http://dsbl.org/
>
> Seems riskier (asking *other* people to exploit open relays), and more open
> to abuse (It's now trivial to blacklist you ISP's SMTP server!). I'm not
> too impressed.
That system is useless; actually, it's more than u
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 the voices made Rose, Bobby write:
> It wasn't attacks. My understanding was that the city was running
> unpatched version of Notes or something and the rigorous relay testing
> caused mail to loop within their system and they took it as an attack.
> Since Thursday, after the
m: Kenneth Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Freedom of Press / Speech / Junk Mail (yah right)
I thought the ORBZ author was sued due to his "attacks" on a mailserver
run by the City, and not so much because h
Bill Becker wrote:
>
>On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
>>Personally, I'm wondering when/if spammers have sued their ISPs for
>>having an AUP that disallows spam.
>>
>
>They could do that only with an inept ISP. Most US ISP agreements will
>say somewhere that either party can termina
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 10:18, Smith, Rick wrote:
>
> How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same
> consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ?
>
> I'm sure that some lawyer out there could find a way to sue someone for
> running this package.
>
The problem with ORBZ didn't
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Personally, I'm wondering when/if spammers have sued their ISPs for
> having an AUP that disallows spam.
They could do that only with an inept ISP. Most US ISP agreements will
say somewhere that either party can terminate the agreement at any time
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Smith, Rick wrote:
> How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same
> consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ?
Forever, plus one day.
>
> I'm sure that some lawyer out there could find a way to sue someone for
> running this package.
>
>
> __
There is no freedom of speech issue here. Freedom of speech issues arise
only when the government or an agent of the government is the party
attempting to prevent the speech from occurring. Since ISPs are private
entities, they can refuse to accept email from anyone for any reason or for
no
I thought the ORBZ author was sued due to his "attacks" on a mailserver
run by the City, and not so much because his service contained blacklists?
That's what I gleaned from
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24544.html anyway.
Kenneth
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Smith, Rick wrote:
>
> How long d
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:42:53AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Let them sue me all they want. By filtering my mail, I'm not infringing on
> your right for free speech. You've spoken by sending me the mail. Based on
> the content, I've chosen not to listen to you and filter your mail out of
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 03:18:22PM -, Smith, Rick wrote:
> How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same
> consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ?
>
> I'm sure that some lawyer out there could find a way to sue someone for
> running this package.
Let them sue me all t
How long do you think it will be until users of SA face the same
consequences as the now infamous ORBZ case ?
I'm sure that some lawyer out there could find a way to sue someone for
running this package.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROT
69 matches
Mail list logo
